1. Title, director and release year? · The 11th Hour · Leila Conners Pertersen and Nadia Cornners · 2007
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? · The main argument that this film tries to express is that current behaviors of humanity are leading to its self destruction. We are destroying the world which we are living in and will eventually lead to our own destruction. Saving the environment is the frist step but as expressed in the film, we are the ones who need saving because in the end the environment will still be here.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? · This film goes into great details about several different sustainable issues. Many of the large ones are touched upon, fossil fuel dependency, global climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, the effects of consumerism and the destructive powers of corporations were all touched upon and were shown how they all interacted with one another. Unlike many of the other films, this one displayed how everything was connected in a manner and how one thing effects all the other issues.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? · The opening images before the title screen were extremely powerful and gave a strong yet brief understanding of what humanity is doing to itself and the world. o The images through the film are so attention grabbing · The talk about saving the environment, yet we are the ones that need to be saved because the environment will still survive yet we will not. · Saying that when ecological events are covered by media that they are reported to be isolated events, yet if you look at them all together there is a lot more to be told. · The interviews with the people in the beginning of the film that put human kind into perspective was very eye opening o How young we are as a species compared to the rest of history o How we are composed of trillion of living things yet considered to be human o Such a broad range of individuals who are speaking which gives a variety of perspectives to listen to and hear what they have to say. § Having scientists, and ecologists, and psychologist gives a lot more than the traditional perspective analyzing more than just what we are doing, but why · When John Kennedy was inaugurated, that there were half as many people on the world as there is now o The rate of human growth is unbelievable and have never thought of it about how fast it is actually growing · The amount of damage that as already been done due to the slight increase in climate change o 20% of ice caps melting o Hurricane duration and spin increasing by 50% · The referral to the “canaries in the coal mine” as to the issue that we are seeing now as warning signs of what is to come · The talk about corporations and saying that in the system that we have now that you are either property or an individual o Nature is obviously property making corporations individuals · It is ridiculous that the Chief of staff Of environmental issues is not a scientists yet a lawyer who is editing Climate change documents before they are released to the public o Hiding the truth makes me lose faith in many things that are supposed to be delivering what is right to the people · Estimating the cost of what it would cost to do what nature does every year is unbelievable. 35 trillion dollars being twice the economy of the entire world is crazy o I liked how they portrayed this in the section while talking about the economy because you are in the state of mind to think about dollars and cents which really puts it into perspective for you · I like how many of the speakers define what they are talking about in a broad manner and then explaining it in a perspective that is not just suggesting the worst o For instance the man talking about how extinction is a natural process, yet we are accelerating it and causing the rate to go through the roof o More impactful that he defined it first as a natural occurrence and then explained what we are doing · A lot of the methods of alteration of design that they suggest at the end are very interesting because they are nothing like conventional methods that are currently being used ·
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? · Although there were many perspectives from many different individuals, a lot of times that one came on screen and began talking by saying “the real problem is”… when I still haven’t fully absorbed what the previous person spoke about. It’s almost an overload of perspective and information · One of the speakers spoke about losing control of the environment, but I feel that we never had control of the climate and that the issue is that we’re are trying to have control over it to make up for mistakes that we have done without even knowing it ·
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.? · I would really like to hear more about what the psychologists are saying about why we are doing what we are doing, wither it be reading something that they have published or researching it o I am a complete supporter to that fact that to be able to stop what we are doing we must understand why we are doing it. That is half the battle and the most important issue at hand. Like they said we must change what is to be desired to be efficient
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? · This film gives such a large overview of the issues that are going on and how much is is effecting over the entire spectrum that is trying to address viewers who are trying to first learn about sustainability issues o The scientific level of language is not very high so it can address a very common audience and be very impacting o Such a strong message in this film and very blunt that it should definitely be able to alter the way that viewers think about environmental issues
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? · There is a lot of talk about reimaging what we do and develop systems that work alongside with the natural environment · Redesign design o Cradle to cradle instead of cradle to grave · Green building · Tapping into natural resources o Using Fungi as methods of purification · Simple thing in everyday life such as keeping your tire pressure at the appropriate levels and using the right light bulbs · Being smarter when purchasing items and being aware of everything that goes into the products that you buy o Disengaging from consumerism o Appreciating the local things o Being smart o Get involved ·
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? · Continuing on some of the points that some of the interviewees spoke about on the spot may allow for their points to be driven home even further
1. Title, director and release year?
· The 11th Hour
· Leila Conners Pertersen and Nadia Cornners
· 2007
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
· The main argument that this film tries to express is that current behaviors of humanity are leading to its self destruction. We are destroying the world which we are living in and will eventually lead to our own destruction. Saving the environment is the frist step but as expressed in the film, we are the ones who need saving because in the end the environment will still be here.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
· This film goes into great details about several different sustainable issues. Many of the large ones are touched upon, fossil fuel dependency, global climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, the effects of consumerism and the destructive powers of corporations were all touched upon and were shown how they all interacted with one another. Unlike many of the other films, this one displayed how everything was connected in a manner and how one thing effects all the other issues.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
· The opening images before the title screen were extremely powerful and gave a strong yet brief understanding of what humanity is doing to itself and the world.
o The images through the film are so attention grabbing
· The talk about saving the environment, yet we are the ones that need to be saved because the environment will still survive yet we will not.
· Saying that when ecological events are covered by media that they are reported to be isolated events, yet if you look at them all together there is a lot more to be told.
· The interviews with the people in the beginning of the film that put human kind into perspective was very eye opening
o How young we are as a species compared to the rest of history
o How we are composed of trillion of living things yet considered to be human
o Such a broad range of individuals who are speaking which gives a variety of perspectives to listen to and hear what they have to say.
§ Having scientists, and ecologists, and psychologist gives a lot more than the traditional perspective analyzing more than just what we are doing, but why
· When John Kennedy was inaugurated, that there were half as many people on the world as there is now
o The rate of human growth is unbelievable and have never thought of it about how fast it is actually growing
· The amount of damage that as already been done due to the slight increase in climate change
o 20% of ice caps melting
o Hurricane duration and spin increasing by 50%
· The referral to the “canaries in the coal mine” as to the issue that we are seeing now as warning signs of what is to come
· The talk about corporations and saying that in the system that we have now that you are either property or an individual
o Nature is obviously property making corporations individuals
· It is ridiculous that the Chief of staff Of environmental issues is not a scientists yet a lawyer who is editing Climate change documents before they are released to the public
o Hiding the truth makes me lose faith in many things that are supposed to be delivering what is right to the people
· Estimating the cost of what it would cost to do what nature does every year is unbelievable. 35 trillion dollars being twice the economy of the entire world is crazy
o I liked how they portrayed this in the section while talking about the economy because you are in the state of mind to think about dollars and cents which really puts it into perspective for you
· I like how many of the speakers define what they are talking about in a broad manner and then explaining it in a perspective that is not just suggesting the worst
o For instance the man talking about how extinction is a natural process, yet we are accelerating it and causing the rate to go through the roof
o More impactful that he defined it first as a natural occurrence and then explained what we are doing
· A lot of the methods of alteration of design that they suggest at the end are very interesting because they are nothing like conventional methods that are currently being used
·
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
· Although there were many perspectives from many different individuals, a lot of times that one came on screen and began talking by saying “the real problem is”… when I still haven’t fully absorbed what the previous person spoke about. It’s almost an overload of perspective and information
· One of the speakers spoke about losing control of the environment, but I feel that we never had control of the climate and that the issue is that we’re are trying to have control over it to make up for mistakes that we have done without even knowing it
·
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
· I would really like to hear more about what the psychologists are saying about why we are doing what we are doing, wither it be reading something that they have published or researching it
o I am a complete supporter to that fact that to be able to stop what we are doing we must understand why we are doing it. That is half the battle and the most important issue at hand. Like they said we must change what is to be desired to be efficient
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
· This film gives such a large overview of the issues that are going on and how much is is effecting over the entire spectrum that is trying to address viewers who are trying to first learn about sustainability issues
o The scientific level of language is not very high so it can address a very common audience and be very impacting
o Such a strong message in this film and very blunt that it should definitely be able to alter the way that viewers think about environmental issues
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
· There is a lot of talk about reimaging what we do and develop systems that work alongside with the natural environment
· Redesign design
o Cradle to cradle instead of cradle to grave
· Green building
· Tapping into natural resources
o Using Fungi as methods of purification
· Simple thing in everyday life such as keeping your tire pressure at the appropriate levels and using the right light bulbs
· Being smarter when purchasing items and being aware of everything that goes into the products that you buy
o Disengaging from consumerism
o Appreciating the local things
o Being smart
o Get involved
·
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
· Continuing on some of the points that some of the interviewees spoke about on the spot may allow for their points to be driven home even further